So OWS Is Leaderless? Bull Shit! Here's One! And He's Clearly A Good One

[Better Believe It]

Run time: 09:55 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeDimSKlOgE   Posted on YouTube: November 10, 2011 By YouTube Member: JohnDoeStudentUCSC Views on YouTube: 3528   Posted on DU: November 25, 2011 By DU Member: Better Believe It Views on DU: 1652

 
Todd Chretien's closing speech to the November 9th Occupy Education rally at the University of California Santa Cruz.

And thank God no "mic check"! A loud, clear professional sound system!

[JDPriestly]

1. The amazing thing is that through this mic check process

the Occupy movement has revealed a lot of people with the same leadership ability as this man. I base that on listening to some of the GAs on the livestream.

Some people are not so well organized, not so articulate, but a surprising number of Occupiers are.

[Better Believe It]

2. I know. Now get them a real microphones so that they can speak effectively and clearly

without their remarks being chopped up to hell by "mic checks"!

Sorry .... but I can only imagine the speech you just saw being given using the very cool, primitive and silly "mic check" method.

It would have taken twice as long meaning fewer people would have an opportunity to speak and the clipboard organizers would have been required to pass out No Doz tablets to participants.

Just a modest exaggeration.

A person will never learn how to be an effective and powerful public speaker if they must depend on "mic checks" to make their points.

Can I get an upside finger wiggle on that?

No chanting, screaming and emotion now .... just wiggle your pinkies!

Sorry .... I'm just old fashioned.

I believe in sound systems at mass meetings and even applause and chanting.

How dare me suggest such horrible assaults on the senses!

Guess we could try out the other option in a mass march.

A wiggle our fingers march followed by a "let's all pretend were a microphone" rally.

But I'm not really worried about this little irritant.

A prediction.

A year from now you won't see anyone use finger wiggles and "mic checks".

They will fade away and hardly anyone will notice or miss them.

[teknomanzer]

4. Maybe you should take your suggestions to the police...

Sound systems were BANNED by law enforcement at many of the OWS gatherings which is why people were using the "mic check" relay system. Maybe if you were paying attention you would know that. As it is your comments are completely inane.

[Better Believe It]

6. Are you serious? I don't collaborate with political police or meekly comply with all their orders.

Well, must we really obey all undemocratic laws and police orders no matter how much they violate our political and civil rights? The civil rights movement defied such orders on a massive scale in the 50's and 60's. If they hadn't, we'd still of Jim Crow laws on the books being enforced by racist cops.

So if the cops order you to not demonstrate, will you hide your sign and run away?

If the cops order you to not engage in an occupation, will you be the first to comply with such an order?

If the cops direct you to shut up and not use a real sound system will you be scramble to pull the plug?

Is that what you have learned from the OWS movement, that resistance is futile?

I hope not.

I prefer people who are sensible, act responsibly and yet don't function in a cowardly manner at the first hint of trouble from the political police and I hope you fit into that category.

Massive defiance of undemocratic laws and in defense of liberty and our bill of rights has always been a central feature of all successful mass social movements in American history.

Capitulation and surrender to the enemies of democracy has never been a virtue.

One does not automatically obey every police order, including any order that protesters not use real microphones. We've had big mass free speech fights over such orders. So make a clear decision on how to respond to political police "orders" in each individual case based upon the forces in play. Defiance is one option .... the one being used all over the world by mass protest movements.

[JDPriestly]

5. Mic check is a great technique

Why? Because it insures that communication is two-way. It insures that people are listening. To repeat the speaker's words, you have to listen.

That is why the mic check will continue to be used in certain circumstances.

People are tired of being talked at.

People are tired of not being heard.

There will still be speechifying, but a generation of kids raised on TV and now enjoying the interaction of the internet are not responding to the one-way communication that is going on, say, in the Republican debates.

The immediate feedback that the twinkle fingers gives is great in my opinion. It sure beats clapping and booing. The twinkle fingers are respectful to the speakers and don't interrupt the flow of the speaker's thoughts.

Speeches will continue to be used by politicians.

But, the mic check and finger feedback will continue to be used in situations in which consensus and working together are the goals.

Remember how the Tea-Baggers screamed out during meetings with congressmen not so long ago?

The desire to interact with politicians rather than to just listen passively is very strong now.

Interestingly, if you read the Lincoln/Douglas debate, the crowds sometimes got very excited and interacted with the debaters in a very spontaneous, sometimes rude, way.

In my copy of Lincoln, Speeches, Letters, Miscellaneous Writings The Lincoln-Douglas Debates (1989) Library Classics of the United States, Inc. pages 514-519, the speakers are reported to have been interrupted numerous times by cries of "Yes, yes," by laughter, by cries of "A humbug," "a humbug," applause, laughter and applause, roars and laughter, cheers and laughter.

Twinkle fingers interrupt the flow of speech a lot less than all that noise. Makes it easier to hear what is being said.

Silent crowds at speechifying events is part of a very patriarchal, hierarchical social organization. The mic check and twinkle fingers will co-exist with the more democratic forms of communication that the Occupy movement has begun.

It is probably very annoying for someone who has prepared a speech to be mic checked. That is akin to the acts of the Tea-Baggers a couple of summers ago. That may end when the dialogue in the country regains a bit of equilibrium. But, in my opinion, the mic check method will become more common in large assemblies of people trying to work together cooperatively.

[JDPriestly]

7. Hey! I understand German.

The German people believed that Hitler was an effective and powerful speaker.

Mesmerizing crowds is a power trip.

Empowering individuals to think for themselves and to think about and understand what is being said is far more valuable than having some mighty leader making an emotionally moving speech.

The OWS movement is about individuals petitioning the government as a group. It is not about yet another special interest group organizing to petition the government.

The traditional method of having well organized individual groups representing certain ideas and causes has divided the country. It has divided the 99% of us who lose out daily because the representation in our representative democracy is co-opted by the wealthy few with some rag-tag organizations purporting to speak for the rest of us pretending to have a voice, pretending to offer leadership.

As I said, Hitler was, in his time, perceived as a very effective and powerful speaker. And look where that got him. Look where that got Germany.

The mic-check method places the responsibility on each listener to either accept or reject what is being said. Now that is valuable.

[Douglas Carpenter]

3. fantastic